Finish the audit and write the report

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false; the description usefully adds what is created and where (three named files under elliot-report/<date>-<commit>/). It does not disclose whether existing files are overwritten, whether the audit is locked afterwards, or what happens with unrecorded candidates, so it stops short of a full behavioral picture.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action and its concrete outputs come first and nothing is redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a state-mutating finalization tool with no output schema, the description covers the produced artifacts but omits the preconditions for a successful call, the effect on audit state, and what is returned on success or failure.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 67%, and the description says nothing about any of the three parameters. In particular the significant 'skipped' array (risk-sweep items with reasons that appear in the report) and the 'out_dir' override are left entirely to the schema, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Close the audit') and enumerates the exact artifacts produced (report.html, report.md, claims.json) plus their destination path. It is distinguishable from most siblings, but it does not clarify how it differs from the sibling elliot_report, which plausibly also emits a report.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: 'Close the audit' suggests this is the terminal step of an audit workflow, but there is no explicit statement of prerequisites (an open audit_id from elliot_audit_start, claims already recorded) or of when to prefer this over elliot_report.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.